Home, Home on the Road

It’s a good question, with a clear and simple answer: Yes. The Padres’ ability to win at home hasn’t changed since moving from Qualcomm to Petco; however, their ability to win on the road has improved dramatically in recent years.

Before proceeding, you may wish to read my 2006 and 2010 Hardball Times articles. You might also want to read Don Bauder’s article at the San Diego Reader, which references the latter (and which refers to me as a “statistics expert”; please, try to contain your laughter).

Now that we’ve gotten the preliminaries out of the way, let’s hit the data. First, here is an updated version of the table I presented earlier showing how the Padres have done at home and away since moving to Petco Park (all tables updated through May 15, 2011):

The above uses wins and losses as a benchmark. Here is another table that uses runs scored and runs allowed (incidentally, and because folks have asked, you can find these splits at Baseball-Reference, e.g., batting splits and pitching splits for the 2011 Padres):

The Padres have been slightly better at home since moving to Petco Park (42.3 wins per 81 home games) than they were during their final 7 seasons at Qualcomm Stadium (41.6). In other words, they are averaging 0.7 more home wins per season.

The Padres have been much better on the road since moving to Petco Park (39.2 wins per 81 road games) than they were during their final 7 seasons at Qualcomm Stadium (34.6). In other words, they are averaging 4.4 more road wins per season.

The Padres and their opponents have each scored about a half run less per game at Petco Park since it opened in 2004 than during the final 7 seasons at Qualcomm Stadium, with the Padres being ever so slightly (0.43 vs 0.50) less affected.

The Padres have scored about one-tenth of a run less per game on the road since moving downtown versus during their final 7 seasons at Qualcomm; however, they have allowed nearly three-quarters of a run less per game on the road. In other words, the pitching staff appears to have benefited from the move to Petco Park, and not only in the most obvious way.

In conclusion, the Padres’ home performance at Petco Park is roughly the same as it was toward the end of the Qualcomm era. In both venues, their home winning percentage is about .023 lower than that of MLB teams as a whole. Their road performance, however, has improved dramatically and is much better than the MLB average.

This improved success away from San Diego accounts for the relatively low differential between home and road performance. In other words, although the Padres have not enjoyed a considerable home field advantage at Petco Park, they have enjoyed better road success since leaving Mission Valley. Why this is so remains an open question.

Future work might examine how these numbers compare to those of other teams, what impact the changes in dimensions at Qualcomm had, and probably other factors I haven’t considered.

One of the more interesting things I’ve found is how much they’ve exceeded their Win Expectancy on the road; to the tune of 17 wins from 2004-2010. I know their W% on the road during that time puts them within the Top 10 in baseball during that time, but those 17 wins are 8 more than the next best team making it by far the best in baseball. Meanwhile, the Padres’ W% and 20 games better than their WE at home places them above the middle-of-the-pack for all of baseball.

Sure, the difference in these figures home/away is tied for the worst in baseball (approximately a 2 win “advantage” at home above WE) but, as you’ve contended, they win at home at a rate no better or worse than half the teams in baseball. They just win an incredible amount of games on the road. What’s more, the manner in which they’re winning away from PETCO Park – by far exceeding their WE – is nothing short of incredible to me.

They are fielding better teams and that is reflected in their road record. The Petco record does not reflect it as much, because its’ dramatic run suppression tendencies add a higher level of randomization to the outcomes.

Rather, not that I believe it to be UNtrue, but a quick glance at the respective WE, & W% totals for each team’s home/road splits don’t really trend one way or another in regards to park factor. If anything, the Padres falling into the middle-of-the-pack at home yet overachievers on the road despite an extreme park seems to clash with other clubs’ park advantages across the league.

That’s my current idea, too, although I’m not sure how it could really be demonstrated. Put a (usually) solid-but-not-spectacular team in a park that seems to randomize outcomes and this is what you get,

I mentioned this in another thread, but some teams do seem to have enjoyed a consistent home-field advantage despite playing in Petco-like parks. It may be that the “randomization” line intersects the “balanced team” line just above the .500 mark. Skew your team towards the home park, you might overcome the random factor but you could also be the Traveling Dead.

I suspect it might take a real kick-ass team, a fluke year, or both for us to see the Padres win more than 50 games at home and be above-average on the road.

I mean what Average team enjoys a strong home field advantage and are above average on the road?

I think one of the biggest issues the Padres have faced is that they have never put a strong offensive team on the field since 2007. It’s hard to win consistently on the Road or at home if you are constantly in close games.

I believe GY’s research shows that most teams, playing in more neutral parks, have a much stronger home winning percentage regardless of their overall talent level. In effect, they win more simply by virtue of being at home. Our “advantage” is substantially less. Those other teams will win more by getting a little bit better, whereas the same improvement has a smaller improvement on our bottom line. If we get a little bit better and Petco makes that irrelevant, we may really need to overbuild to beat it.

Obviously the better a team is, the more it wins regardless of location, but in our case we may (stress may, because this is all hypothetical on my part) need a truly “great” team just to see a “really good” record.

Put another way, if perhaps not any more clearly — a Padre team that wins (and deserves to win) 95 games might be a legitimate 100+ game winner in a neutral park.

It’s simple. Throw out all these numbers. It’s a baseball thing. Guys don’t like hitting at Petco Canyon. So when they get out of their stadium and into another it’s a relief. They can relax and become the confident hitters they are.

It is all about the 1 run games. Over time, teams tend to play 1 run games at a .500 clip. By decreasing offense in general, Petco creates 1 runs games. I suggest this make it extremely difficlt for the Padres to dominate at home.

I was wondering if the team’s total wins might correlate to its home-field (dis)advantage (as in a good overall record means a better team and therefore more of a home-field advantage), but I can’t discern any pattern whatsoever. All I see is that they didn’t have a winning season with a home-field disadvantage until they moved to Petco.

Disclaimer: Any time I do math online, I make mistakes. Please double-check my work!

That assumes all bullpens being equal. All bullpens are NOT equal,
and over the last 14 years in both ballparks, the Padres have had
good to great bullpens. Considering the Padres have had only two
closers in the last 18 years, both of them elite, I suspect that’s the key
to a quality bullpen. People may need to reassess what a Heath Bell
is actually worth to the team.

I don’t believe the 1-run games winning percentage is really affected by bullpen quality. The smaller the margin of victory, the more it can be influenced by random events — the passed ball on a strikeout, the error on a routine DP, a crazy hop. Play enough of them and outcomes tend to even out, although “enough of them” may be multiple seasons.

In any one year, a team’s won-loss record in those contests is subject to crazy random results. The 2006 Padres went 30-22 in 1 run games; the next year, at least a roughly equal team in terms of talent, they went 23-26. Both teams had strong pens, but 2007′s was markedly better and yet they won less. You can compare that to the 2009-2010 Pirates. Neither squad was good, losing more than 200 games over those two seasons, but the worse team (2010) had a near-even record in one-run games, with no giant difference in pen performance. Shit happens in 1-run games.

Trevor in his prime was occasionally backed by a cast of stinkers. In 2008 neither one of them was very good compared to other relievers. No matter how good one reliever is, he can’t make up for 4 or 5 bad ones.